Cleaning up after the Confederacy: Confederate money transactions Henly v. Franklin – Tennessee, 1866 (43 Tenn. 472); Robertson v. Shores – Tennessee, 1869 (47 Tenn. 164); Sherfy v. Argenbright – Tennessee, 1870 (48 Tenn. 128); Brown v. Wylie – West Virginia, 1867 (2 W.Va. 502); Harrison v. Farmers Bank of Virginia – West Virginia, 1873 (6 W.Va. 1)
“It [Confederate currency] was the life blood of the rebellion, an unlawful means to an unlawful end.” – Justice James Brown, in Wylie “The success of the rebellion depended, in great measure, upon the ability of the Rebel authorities to sustain the credit of their currency … The intended and the actual effect of the issuance and circulation of this currency, was to make every noteholder a stockholder in the Confederacy.” – Justice George Andrews, in Robertson “It seems to me now to be required by every principle of propriety and of reason, that the courts … respect the validity of the transactions and contracts of that people growing out of their civil and private relations during that [war] period, and not designed to aid in maintaining the rebellion. To hold otherwise … might disturb the private and domestic relations of an entire community for no purpose, and to effect no good.” – Justice James Paull, in Harrison“[F]or the repose of society, when contracts, or other transactions were executed, we would not, although originally predicated upon Confederate Treasury notes, disturb them. This rule … more directly meets the torn and distracted condition of the country, than any other we could establish.” – Justice Sam Milligan, in Henly Entering the industrial age: corporate regulation in the mountain South State ex rel. Missouri & Mississippi River Railroad Co. v. Macon County Court – Missouri, 1867 (41 Mo. 453); Shelby County Court v. Cumberland & Ohio Railroad Co. – Kentucky, 1871 (71 Ky. 209); Mercer County Court v. Kentucky River Navigation Co. – Kentucky, 1871 (71 Ky. 300); Osage Valley & Southern Kansas Railroad Co. v. County Court of Morgan County – Missouri, 1873 (54 Mo. 156); Knoxville & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Hicks – Tennessee, 1877 (68 Tenn. 442)
| Confederate currency (one bill showing Tennessee state capitol) - courtesy Wikimedia Commons
Burlington & Missouri River Railroad Co. stock certificate (1870s) - courtesy Wikimedia Commons “Whatever doubts may have existed, or might now be entertained, as to the constitutional validity of … municipal subscriptions for stock in railroads affording peculiar local benefits … such subscriptions …. may now be regarded as of unquestionable constitutionality, in view of the numerous and uniform decisions of this court sustaining them.” - Justice __, in Shelby County “It is difficult to perceive how [local railroad aid] can be [a public purpose] with reference to the establishment of an ordinary private corporation, however great may br its influence for enhancing the property of the wealthy, or stimulating or promoting any particular private business or pursuit.” - Justice Mordecai Hardin (dissenting), in Mercer County |
EMPIRE OF LAWS - The Legal History of the 50 American States > 4. MOUNTAIN SOUTH LEGAL HISTORY > 4.3 Mountain South: Civil War and Reconstruction (1861-1877) > 4.3.1 Mountain South (1861-1877): Law and War > 4.3.2 Mountain South (1861-1877): The Restoration and Reconstruction Eras > 4.3.3 Mountain South (1861-1877): Coming to Grips With Emancipation >